muppetfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Kimya Dawson
In Development? Dawson doesn't really count as a writer yet, because she hasn't written anything for Sesame... This is more an "in development" type article. It's good to have a source for this, but it's so vague that I'm not sure it's worth having right now. -- Danny (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC) :This is similar to concerns I raised at Talk:Forest Whitaker, only even moreso. The page uses phrases like "reportedly" and "approached," and in general it's a "maybe possibly she'll end up writing something if she feels like it sort of who knows" situation. I say we nuke until there's solid evidence that anything comes of it (i.e. a video or episode actually debuts with her name on it, or an interview that says "I wrote the Potato Song for a Sesame Street project"). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC) :: I'm emailing her and her publicity person, to ask for more details. -- Zanimum 17:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC) ::: Also, Nick, I saw you added a development tag to Kanye West. We don't and shouldn't do that for people. If there's a possibility that something may not happen involving a celebrity, wait to create it. Pages for Henson *projects* which are announced but never come to pass can go in Category:Unfinished Projects. Pages for people have to be deleted. In general, in fact, similar to our discussions over at Category talk: In Development, it's better to wait. In cases like Sandra Oh where you have a picture as evidence or a talk show interview or something solid, it's fine to go ahead, but otherwise, there's no real benefit to jumping the gun. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC) ::::Well, it's been over a week and no news from Nick. More importantly, I've seen the rumor scattered all over the place, including the Tough Pigs forum, claiming that Dawson has definitely been commissioned and will be writing songs for the show, all based on the single initial article which says nothing of the sort. Since one of our chief concerns is not to knowingly spread misinformation and rumors, and since we can't treat people as "in development," I'm going to park the initial Cleveland New Dealer article link and delete the page until a definite, concrete announcement is made by Dawson or Sesame, not second hand reports (remember the whole Britney Spears thing?) Talks don't always lead to things, and either Dawson or Sesame Workshop could change their mind when/if this develops into more serious negotiations. Plus other articles right now, such as this one, claim she's instead "accepted an invitation to perform on Sesame Street in the near future." It's another round robin issue, only this time within the mainstream media. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC) ::::: Sorry, I got a reply within a day, just forgot to relay anything to here. Hey Nick, It is true, Kimya met with Sesame Street this week to discuss various collaborations with the show. No segments have been finalized but she hopes to be eventually involved with the content of the show in a few different facets. Thanks, Colleen Colleen Dixon | K Publicist PO Box 7154 | Olympia, WA 98507 www.krecs.com | promo@krecs.com p:360-786-1594 | f: 360-786-5024 ::::: Would it be possible to have a page for Announced possible Sesame Street content? Things that have reputable sources, but have not yet come to fruition enough to deserve their own page? It would also currently include about Feist apparently taping a parody of 1-2-3-4, and to have put Vince Carter's information, before we knew he was in 'Sesame Street: Count on Sports!'', and not season 39. -- Zanimum 17:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC) ::::::I'm not too keen on that, either the title or the concept. However, and this has been done in the past, I'm all in favor of creating a talk page. That is to say, one can create Talk:Feist to park what info is known and any rumors without creating an actual article; then, if it actually happens, one has other information and so on already on the page. Info parked on a talk page is just that, whereas an actual article tends to imply more certainty than exists in these cases (your e-mail, for example, confirmed the initial article, that it was just talks and possibilities, and everything else has been rumors). I think that would be an ideal way to handle these situations as they arise, and better allows other people to add additional or conflicting info to sort things out. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)